Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Spiff
I would disagree that we would even want and amendment for the above listed reasons and:
1)It will never pass, meanwhile the judging elite continue to make law illegally. 2)Congress has the power by a 50.1% vote to pass a law defining marriage, then remove authority for any federal court, including the supreme court, to have any jurisdiction relating to the law, or even the topic of marriage in general. - that is doable
4 posted on 03/23/2004 3:40:09 PM PST by GrandEagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: GrandEagle
2)Congress has the power by a 50.1% vote to pass a law defining marriage, then remove authority for any federal court, including the supreme court, to have any jurisdiction relating to the law, or even the topic of marriage in general. - that is doable

The exact opposite can and will happen whenever the political winds change. The reason for a Constitutional amendment is to make certain that the law doesn't change so rapidly. A society with no definite laws is an anarchy, and since people inherently don't like to live in such a state, then such a society would be ripe for a dictator or oligarchy.

6 posted on 03/23/2004 3:45:34 PM PST by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: GrandEagle
I like with your 50.1% idea. Here's the problem -

What happens when the Rats get back in power and 50.1 % decide to ban centerfire cartridges and tell judges this decision is outside the court's purview? Could a court step in and declare the edict unconstitutional even though the Congress said the courts cannot review it?
7 posted on 03/23/2004 3:58:28 PM PST by sergeantdave (Gen. Custer wore an Arrowsmith shirt to his last property owner convention.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: GrandEagle
then remove authority for any federal court, including the supreme court, to have any jurisdiction relating to the law, or even the topic of marriage in general

Which would just lock in super-power status for state courts.

We need a solution that will restore representative government, and we need a uniform definition of marriage. Federal benefits and taxes rely on the definition of marriage. Also, the SCOTUS has made it a federal issue with their Lawrence decision in which they mentioned marriage, thereby aiding the Massachusett's high court decision mandating gay marriage.

It shouldn't have come to this. It shouldn't be necessary. But it's not our fault. Blame the judges.

13 posted on 03/23/2004 4:20:06 PM PST by King Black Robe (With freedom of religion and speech now abridged, it is time to go after the press.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson